Richardson v. Four Thousand Five Hundred Forty-three Dollars, United States Currency

WINMILL, Judge, Pro Tem.

This appeal follows from a judgment entered by the district court ordering the forfeiture of seized currency, pursuant to I.C. § 37-2744. Mark Printz, the real party in interest, argues that the district court erroneously declined to give collateral estoppel effect to a prior suppression order, entered in a related criminal case, that held certain evidence — including the seized currency — was obtained in violation of Idaho’s “knock and announce” statute.1 For the reasons explained below, we reverse the judgment.

On November 25, 1986, at approximately 7:00 p.m., Printz…